Sohan Lal Hindu Dharmshala vs Jyotishanand Shukla
2013 Latest Caselaw 98 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

Court No. - 21
 

 
Case :- RENT CONTROL No. - 115 of 2003
 

 
Petitioner :- Sohan Lal Hindu Dharmshala
 
Respondent :- Jyotishanand Shukla
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Mohammad Saeed Ii
 
Respondent Counsel :- Manish Mathur
 

 
Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan,J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This writ petition is directed against order dated 4.9.2002 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), South, Lucknow in Case No.87 of 1995 Jyotishnand Shukla vs. Sohan Lal Hindu Dharmshala. Through the said order Shri Jyotishnand Shukla tenant-respondent in this writ petition was directed to deposit the rent under Section 30 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the tenanted building in dispute belongs to the petitioner which is a charitable Institution and the Act does not apply to such institutions. It is not necessary to decide this question in this writ petition. Deposit of rent under Section 30 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 does not decide anything substantial. If a suit for eviction is filed by the landlord against the tenant on the ground of default and tenant claims that he is not defaulter for the reason that he has deposited the rent under Section 30 of the Act then in the suit for eviction tenant has to satisfy the court that the amount is deposited under Section 30 of the Act was validly deposited. The mere fact that Civil Judge (Junior Division) allows making of deposit under Section 30 of the Act does not mean that the deposit is valid. The validity of deposit has to be independently proved in the proceedings for eviction on the ground of default.

Similarly the argument of learned counsel for the respondent that there is nothing on record that the property belongs to trust need be decided at this stage. It will also be decided in the sit for eviction if filed.

Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with the observation that in case suit for eviction is filed by the landlord petitioner against tenant respondent then the above points if raised shall be decided by Judge Small Causes Court where suit for eviction is filed and merely because through the impugned order tenant has been permitted to deposit the rent under Section 30 of the Act it shall not be treated that the deposit is valid. If the court/Judge Small Causes Court comes to the conclusion that Rent Control Act applies to the building in dispute only then it shall treat the deposit to be valid otherwise not.

Order Date :- 2.4.2013

RS